From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Thu Dec 20 13:04:58 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B52513466D4; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:04:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from mx0.gid.co.uk (mx0.gid.co.uk [194.32.164.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0DC577E65; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:04:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from [194.32.164.27] ([194.32.164.27]) by mx0.gid.co.uk (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id wBKD4jLj093718; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:04:45 GMT (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD From: rb@gid.co.uk In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:04:45 +0000 Cc: Matthew Macy , freebsd-current , freebsd-fs Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2A394CBF-7739-4F64-B559-BBF513EC141B@gid.co.uk> References: To: Steven Hartland X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A0DC577E65 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of rb@gid.co.uk designates 194.32.164.250 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rb@gid.co.uk X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.56 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MX_INVALID(0.50)[greylisted]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[gid.co.uk]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.07)[0.073,0]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.17)[0.174,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.07)[-0.072,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[250.164.32.194.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; IP_SCORE(-0.31)[asn: 42831(-1.48), country: GB(-0.10)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42831, ipnet:194.32.164.0/24, country:GB]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:04:58 -0000 > On 20 Dec 2018, at 11:58, Steven Hartland = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 20/12/2018 11:03, Bob Bishop wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:16, Matthew Macy wrote: >>>=20 >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 15:11 Steven Hartland = >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Sorry been off for a few weeks so must have missed that, please do = prod me >>>> on again if you don=E2=80=99t see any response to anything not just = this. Like many >>>> others I get so may emails across so many lists it=E2=80=99s more = than likely I >>>> just missed it. >>>>=20 >>>> That said would you say that with the right support we can make = progress >>>> on the this prior to the port? I have to ask as the alternative = version has >>>> been on the cusp for many years now so it=E2=80=99s feels more like = a distant >>>> memory than something that may happen, no disrespect to anyone = involved, as >>>> I know all too well how hard it can be to get something like this = over the >>>> line, especially when people have competing priorities. >>>>=20 >>> I am hoping that it's sufficiently important to FreeBSD ZFS = developers that >>> they'll give the PR the attention it needs so that it can be merged = before >>> summer. My understanding is that it's mostly suffered from neglect. = TRIM is >>> most important to FreeBSD and it already had its own implementation. >>>=20 >>> https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/pull/5925 >> Please correct me if I=E2=80=99m wrong but this looks a lot less = mature than FreeBSD=E2=80=99s existing TRIM support for ZFS which = we=E2=80=99ve had in production for six years. >>=20 >> What is the rationale here? I=E2=80=99m concerned that it looks like = an opportunity for mighty regressions. >>=20 > This is the case, but overall this solution is thought to be a better = approach. >=20 > With anything like this there is always a risk, so we all need a = concerted effort to get to one solution. Not sure what I can contribute, but I can certainly put a box up for = testing when there=E2=80=99s something to test. > Regards > Steve >=20 -- Bob Bishop rb@gid.co.uk